Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Judge cites Abrego in ordering Trump administration to facilitate return of Venezuelans

Published

on

Judge cites Abrego in ordering Trump administration to facilitate return of Venezuelans

The government’s serial lawbreakingin Donald Trump’s second termraises the recurring question: What are the consequences?

It’s an important question with a frequently unsatisfying answer — whether due to the law itself, the judges tasked with carrying it out, or some combination of the two.

But even if the prospect of personal accountability for Trump officials seems remotesometimes there are remedies for clear rights violations, however belated and meager those remedies might be.

Take the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the Trump administration illegally sentfrom the U.S. to El Salvador and, only after months of resistance, complied with a Maryland judge’s orderto facilitate his return.

In the latest example of a judge recognizing that rights are only as good as their remedies, Washington’s chief federal trial judge cited Abrego’s case to justify an order for the government to facilitate the return of Venezuelans who were illegally sent to El Salvador in March under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act.

While it’s unclear what will come of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s order in practical terms, it stands out for its plain reiteration of the government’s lawlessness and the understanding that that lawlessness can’t go unnoticed, or unacted upon.

Boasberg, who is D.C.’s chief district judge, began his seven-page opinion and orderby noting that he had previously found that the government denied due process to those Venezuelans when it deported them “in defiance of this Court’s Order.” The Obama-appointed judge reminds the reader that we’re talking about official lawbreaking from the beginning.

The most recent chapter of this long-running litigation stems from Boasberg telling the governmentto give him its plan for how it will provide belated due process to the people it deported without giving them a chance to challenge their designation under the 1798 wartime law and the validity of Trump’s proclamation invoking it.

The judge observed that the matter had become logistically complicated by the fact that the men were back in Venezuela and elsewhere after initially being sent to El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, also known as CECOT. But he maintained that the plaintiffs still deserved the chance to vindicate their rights.

Yet he wrote Thursday that U.S. officials didn’t seem interested in participating in the process and, instead, “essentially told the Court to pound sand.”

That’s what led him to cite Abrego’s case in similarly taking the step of ordering the government “to facilitate the return from third countries of those Plaintiffs who so desire.” In this context, “third countries” are ones outside of Venezuela and the U.S., with Venezuela exempted due to foreign-affairs sensitivities that the U.S. has asserted after its abduction of leader Nicolás Madurofrom that country.

But the judge noted that plaintiffs in third countries and in Venezuela can still file court papers seeking to show that Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful and that they don’t qualify under it in any event.

Boasberg wrote that he was “mindful of the flagrancy of the Government’s violations of the deportees’ due-process rights that landed Plaintiffs in this situation,” so he “refuses to let them languish in the solution-less mire Defendants propose.”

As for the potentially limited practical effects, the judge noted that anyone who gets back to the U.S. will be taken into custody pending further litigation and could be deported again. He wrote that the plaintiffs’ lawyers were unable to say how many of the 137 deported Venezuelans were still in that country and how many want to press their claims, but the lawyers said at least a handful do.

Whatever comes of the ruling — and there’s every reason to think that Boasberg will enforce it to the greatest extent he can — it stands for a crucial principle. If the government didn’t have to right its wrongs, the judge wrote, it “could simply remove people from the United States without providing any process and then, once they were in a foreign country, deny them any right to return for a hearing or opportunity to present their case from abroad.”

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

House faces showdown vote over Trump’s tariffs on Canada

Published

on

House faces showdown vote over Trump’s tariffs on Canada

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Wednesday to slap back President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada, a rare if largely symbolic rebuke of the White House agenda as Republicans joined Democrats over the objections of GOP leadership.

The tally, 219-211, was among the first times the House, controlled by Republicans, has confronted the president over a signature policy, and drew instant recrimination from Trump himself. The resolution seeks to end the national emergency Trump declared to impose the tariffs, though actually undoing the policy would require support from the president, which is highly unlikely. It next goes to the Senate.

Trump believes in the power of tariffs to force U.S. trade partners to the negotiating table. But lawmakers are facing unrest back home from businesses caught in the trade wars and constituents navigating pocketbook issues and high prices.

“Today’s vote is simple, very simple: Will you vote to lower the cost of living for the American family or will you keep prices high out of loyalty to one person — Donald J. Trump?” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who authored the resolution.

Within minutes, as the gavel struck, Trump fired off a stern warning to those in the Republican Party who would dare to cross him.

“Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!” the president posted on social media.

The high-stakes moment provides a snapshot of the House’s unease with the president’s direction, especially ahead of the midterm elections as economic issues resonate among voters. The Senate has already voted to reject Trump’s tariffs on Canada and other countries in a show of displeasure. But both chambers would have to approve the tariff rollbacks, and send the resolution to Trump for the president’s signature — or veto.

Six House Republicans voted for the resolution, and one Democrat voted against it.

From Canada, Ontario, Premier Doug Ford on social media called the vote “an important victory with more work ahead.” He thanked lawmakers from both parties “who stood up in support of free trade and economic growth between our two great countries. Let’s end the tariffs and together build a more prosperous and secure future.”

Trump recently threatened to impose a 100% tariff on goods imported from Canada over that country’s proposed China trade dealintensifying a feud with the longtime U.S. ally and Prime Minister Mark Carney.

GOP defections forced the vote

House Speaker Mike Johnson tried to prevent this showdown.

Johnson insisted lawmakers wait for a pending Supreme Court ruling in a lawsuit about the tariffs. He engineered a complicated rules change to prevent floor action. But Johnson’s strategy collapsed late Tuesday, as Republicans peeled off during a procedural vote to ensure the Democratic measure was able to advance.

“The president’s trade policies have been of great benefit,” Johnson, R-La., had said. “And I think the sentiment is that we allow a little more runway for this to be worked out between the executive branch and the judicial branch.”

Late Tuesday evening, Johnson could be seen speaking to holdout Republican lawmakers as the GOP leadership team struggled to shore up support during a lengthy procedural vote, but the numbers lined up against him.

“We’re disappointed,” Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, told reporters at the White House on Wednesday morning. “The president will make sure they don’t repeal his tariffs.”

Terminating Trump’s emergency

The resolution put forward by Meeks would terminate the national emergency that Trump declared a year ago as one of his executive orders.

The administration claimed illicit drug flow from Canada constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat that allows the president to slap tariffs on imported goods outside the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

The Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, said the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. is a dire national emergency and the policy must be left in place.

“Let’s be clear again about what this resolution is and what it’s not. It’s not a debate about tariffs. You can talk about those, but that’s not really what it is,” Mast said. “This is Democrats trying to ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis.”

Experts say fentanyl produced by cartels in Mexico is largely smuggled into the U.S. from land crossings in California and Arizona. Fentanyl is also made in Canada and smuggled into the U.S., but to a much lesser extent.

Torn between Trump and tariffs

Ahead of voting, some rank-and-file Republican lawmakers expressed unease over the choices ahead as Democrats — and a few renegade Republicans — impressed on their colleagues the need to flex their power as the legislative branch rather than ceding so much power to the president to take authority over trade and tariff policy.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he was unpersuaded by Johnson’s call to wait until the Supreme Court makes its decision about the legality of Trump’s tariffs. He voted for passage.

“Why doesn’t the Congress stand on its own two feet and say that we’re an independent branch?” Bacon said. “We should defend our authorities. I hope the Supreme Court does, but if we don’t do it, shame on us.”

Bacon, who is retiring rather than facing reelection, also argued that tariffs are bad economic policy.

Other Republicans had to swiftly make up their minds after Johnson’s gambit — which would have paused the calendar days to prevent the measure from coming forward — was turned back.

“At the end of the day, we’re going to have to support our president,” said Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said he doesn’t want to tie the president’s hands on trade and would support the tariffs on Canada “at this time.”

__

Associated Press writers Rob Gillies in Toronto and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

US Energy Secretary visits Venezuela to scope oil…

Published

on

US Energy Secretary visits Venezuela to scope oil…

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright arrived Wednesday in Venezuela for a firsthand assessment of the country’s oil industry, a visit that further asserts the U.S. government’s self-appointed role in turning around Venezuela’s dilapidated energy sector.

Wright met Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez at the Miraflores presidential palace in the capital, Caracas. He is expected to meet with government officials, oil executives and others during a three-day visit to the South American country.

Wright’s visit comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump continues to lift sanctions to allow foreign companies to operate in Venezuela and help rebuild the nation’s most important industry. It follows last month’s enactment of a Venezuelan law that opened the nation’s oil sector to private investment, reversing a tenet of the self-proclaimed socialist movement that has ruled the country for more than two decades.

“I bring today a message from President Trump,” Wright told reporters as he stood next to Rodríguez with flags from both countries behind them. “He is passionately committed to absolutely transforming the relationship between the United States and Venezuela, part of a broader agenda to make the Americas great again, to bring our countries closer together, to bring commerce, peace, prosperity, jobs, opportunity to the people of Venezuela.”

Rodríguez was sworn into her new role after the brazen Jan. 3 seizure of then-President Nicolas Maduro in a U.S. military attack in Caracas. She proposed the overhaul of the country’s energy law after Trump said his administration would take control of Venezuela’s oil exports and revitalize the ailing industry by luring foreign investment.

Rodríguez on Wednesday acknowledged that Venezuela’s relationship with the U.S. has had “highs and lows” but said both countries are now working on a mutually benefiting “energy agenda.”

“Let diplomatic dialogue … and energy dialogue be the appropriate and suitable channels for the U.S. and Venezuela to maturely determine how to move forward,” she said.

Rodríguez’s government expects the changes to the country’s oil law to serve as assurances for major U.S. oil companies that have so far hesitated about returning to the volatile country. Some of those companies lost investments when the ruling party enacted the existing law two decades ago to favor Venezuela’s state-run oil company, PDVSA.

The new law now grants private companies control over oil production and sales, ending PDVSA’s monopoly over those activities as well as pricing. It also allows for independent arbitration of disputes, removing a mandate for disagreements to be settled only in Venezuelan courts, which are controlled by the ruling party.

Foreign investors view the involvement of independent arbitrators as crucial to guard against future expropriation.

Wright told reporters the reform “is a meaningful step in the right direction” but “probably not far and clear enough to encourage the kind of large capital flows” the U.S. would like to see in Venezuela.

Wright planned to visit oil fields Thursday.

Venezuela, which has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and produces about 1 million barrels a day, has long relied on oil revenue as a lifeblood of its economy.

Trump imposed crippling sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry during his first term, locking out the state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. of the global oil markets in an attempt to topple Maduro. That pushed his government to rely on a shadowy fleet of unflagged tankers to smuggle deeply discounted crude into global supply chains.

In December, Trump ordered a blockade of all “sanctioned oil tankers” entering or leaving the South American country, ramping up pressure on Maduro in a move that seemed designed to put a tighter chokehold on Venezuela’s economy. U.S. forces that month also began seizing oil tankers off Venezuela’s Caribbean coast.

Since Maduro’s Jan. 3 ouster, the Trump administration set out to control the productionrefining and global distribution of Venezuela’s petroleum products and oversee where the revenue flows. The administration also began lifting broad sanctions, but also continued seizing tankers — now in agreement with Venezuela’s government — including one this week in the Indian Ocean after it was tracked from the Caribbean Sea.

Wright on Wednesday told reporters the blockade is “essentially over” as the U.S. is “flowing Venezuelan crude out, selling it at a much higher price than Venezuela was selling it before,” and the revenue is being used in specific projects benefiting Venezuelans.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

DHS reportedly taps Labor Department aide behind posts echoing white supremacist rhetoric

Published

on

DHS reportedly taps Labor Department aide behind posts echoing white supremacist rhetoric

There’s desperation in the air at the Department of Homeland Security.

That’s my reading of a new report from The New York Times that 21-year-old Peyton Rollins, who worked as a social media manager at the Labor Department as the agency pushed out posts echoing white supremacist rhetoricwill now help run social media accounts for DHS. (The Times said it had reviewed screenshots of an updated DHS staff directory, which MS NOW has not seen.)

It’s a fitting development, really, given that DHS’ social media accounts have already become megaphones for racist propaganda — a trend I wrote about last year that has only ramped up since then. One could also argue it reeks of desperation for the department to essentially promote someone who has spread bigoted propaganda to handle a major part of its public messaging, just as opposition to Donald Trump’s racist anti-immigrant crackdown continues to mount.

DHS, of course, has downplayed the demonstrable links between its posts and ones promoted by avowed white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and it has sometimes tried to hide its cruel posts mocking immigrants behind a veil of sadistic humor.

Amid these denials, I’ve been reading a lot of writings from historian Elaine Frantz, whose work focuses heavily on propaganda deployed by the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, including the use of humor, tactful deflection and other strategies to obscure their menacing ways or valorize themselves in the eyes of the public.

One of the most important things I’ve read of late is a 2011 contribution from Frantz to The Journal of Southern History, titled “Klan Skepticism and Denial in Reconstruction-Era Public Discourse” — an article that’s best described as an explainer on the ways that Klan members, pro-Klan politicians and even sympathetic voices in prominent outlets such as The New York Times played a role in downplaying and placating the Klan and its overt racism.

Frantz, for example, writes of the Times:

In April 1868 the Times printed, without comment or framing, a letter from a southern correspondent who claimed that there was no Klan in South Carolina; rather, it was “banter and practical joking, conducted by that style of persons at the expense of those overnervous parties who are constitutionally sensational.” By mid-May, as the first burst of Klan coverage was on the wane, the Times mused, “There is no doubt what ever that a great part of the uproar we had a short time ago about the Kuklux Klan, was without cause.”

It strikes me that the nation seems to find itself in a similar scenario today, wherein political leaders are drawing shamelessly from the well of racism to achieve their quests for power and influence.

Rollins’ new gig at DHS is evidence enough of that. The question will be whether enough of the American public will see through such efforts to manipulate the masses through bigotry.

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending